General Debate 15 January 2013

January 15th, 2013 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

184 Responses to “General Debate 15 January 2013”

  1. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Five islamic terrorists who were convicted of planning to bomb an unknown Sydney destination are appealing against their sentences. They have already cost the Aussie tax payer 10 million dollars in legal aid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/01/student-loan-exiles.html

    Mornin peeps

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Some blog questions:

    What is the impact of political blogs in NZ? Is it increasing or declining? Why?

    To what extent are the views of the active blogging community representative of, or different from, the average NZ voter?

    Is it fair to say that bloggers tend to have views that are more “extreme” than the norm?

    What do Kiwiblog participants want to achieve from your contributions here? Or is it just an entertainment, a pastime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Keeping Stock (10,340 comments) says:

    Dear Brendon

    You and your team are not the only ones who are “incredibly disappointed”. Please do something about it.

    Kind regards

    A New Zealand cricket supporter of more than 50 years duration

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/understatement-of-season.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Cricket – wicketness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Pete: There is no mtyhical “average voter”. Witness myself and my 3 brothers. Me: Center right. Brother 1: Right. Brother 2: Left. Maybe between us we make an average voter :)

    KS: I live in hope that the Show Pony might learn something from this. But then we cant afford test cricket and test cricketers any more, when the big countries and bucks are in the hit and giggle. There is no incentive to learn to bat with patience, to construct an innings over multiple sessions. Sad, but I fear, true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    What do Kiwiblog participants want to achieve from your contributions here? Or is it just an entertainment, a pastime?

    For me it is about the exchange of ideas and the chance to see how other people think on various issues. I never really expect to change any bodies ideas, but at least we can all get some insight into the oppositions thoughts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    The whole point is you get to make fun of nutters or expose the reality gaps that produce nuttery
    its fun and makes me laugh
    to see their mental contortions to hold conflicting “facts” in their heads
    :lol:
    KB Griffs idea of comedy better than sitcoms

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    KS

    Don’t panic. I’m sure they will find some positives to take out of this even though some of them may prefer Europe over SA as a holiday destination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Griff

    Have a wee lie down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hj (7,021 comments) says:

    taking back the neighbourhood: people power:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/science/lessons-in-community-from-chicagos-south-side.html?smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Driving through Shirley the other day i see a ‘T’ shirted tough with a pitbull without a collar. He would probably justify his behaviour as libertarian but in reality he is saying “I’m a local war-lord”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    Griff again demonstrates his in- depth thoughfulness and power of intellect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    The impact and influence of political blogs in New Zealand will increase as the political left declines. The influence of the left will decline because it’s no longer needed. Anyone can get on a computer and put their message out there, whereas traditionally the left has been a voice for minorities and the misbegotten. They’ll lessen their influence. Apart from the workers voice which I fully support but when the labour vote becomes a fully blown vehicle for socialism you’ve got to draw the line. Which will sadden tits like Griff no end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Internet users could pay to access music and other content, but from the hints Dotcom has dropped it is likely they would more commonly get it for free by agreeing to download a refined version of “Megakey”, a controversial application that originally debuted on Megaupload in 2010.

    Megakey would replace at least some advertisements on any websites members visited with ads served up by Mega. The prize being eyed by Dotcom is a slice of the US$25 billion (NZ$29.7b) global market for online display advertising.

    “Based on what we know about Megakey so far, the most obvious legal buttons the software will likely press appear in the realm of – you guessed it – copyright,” he says.

    “Under copyright law, website owners have exclusive rights to their web property. And that means they alone decide how it looks, including which ads display on their webpages.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8171556/Fresh-copyright-conundrum-from-Dotcom

    This sounds like a silly argument to me. The user has chosen to install a program that governs what is displayed on THEIR computer. Their computer is not the same thing as any website they may view. If Dotcom develops a program to change what the user sees, with that users permission, I fail to see what laws have been broken.

    The fact is the website owner does not have absolute control over how their webpage looks. They only govern the information sent from their server. Other things like the users operating system, browse, plugins and other software as well as hardware like their monitor etc. may also determine how it is displayed to the user as is the user’s right to exercise control over their own computer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    The resident alarmist has become the new KB’s clown and rightful subject of derision and ridicule.
    No mean feat as he has dethroned the likes of Miss Dim and the bludger Ure, with whom he shares a fondness for weed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    PG

    1) Impact will wax & wane depending on where we’re at in the election cycle.

    2) Views are probably a little more extreme than average…..if someone can barely be bothered to vote they’re not going to spend a lot of time on a political forum.

    3) I come here (& other blogs) to learn & keep informed. That said, if there wasn’t an entertainment factor the medium would become boring very quickly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (7,021 comments) says:

    Interesting take on why the traditional downtown was different and missed in the modern city.
    http://www.urbanindy.com/2013/01/09/the-genius-of-traditional-buildings/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I have read every climate nutter blog

    Griff, I see the problem. You have been reading “nutter” sites and not listening to the real scientists who disagree with AGW theory.

    Not many dispute climate change is real. Most acknowledge mans influence on climate. The point of difference is largely around the degree that mans activities influence climate.

    It is really that simple and does not require you to be a “nutter” to understand the science they present.

    they dont take money from the carbon industry

    There is no such thing as a “Carbon Industry”. There is however a AGW industry and it is big dollars. Who funds the IPCC and all the “scientists” you quote Griff?

    Do they have any other way of supporting themselves or paying the mortgage ?

    I know oil and coal companies do, because they sell a product the world can not get enough of. The biggest markets in the world all reject climate change and they have a huge market in China and India. The fossil fuel suppliers have not concerns about your silly theory, as the world needs their product. The world does not need unreliable weathermen who tell fibs for money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    I suspect the impact of political blogs in NZ is bugger all, to be frank. How many people in NZ actually choose to dedicate a decent amount of time to reading and analysing political blogs? (Forget those people who might just browse occasionally). I suspect it will be a very tiny number – the majority of Kiwis are probably far more interested in rugby, so-called ‘celebrities’, the best fishing/swimming/barbeque spots, and DIY.

    Just my own hunches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Monique Watson (832) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 9:06 am

    The impact and influence of political blogs in New Zealand will increase as the political left declines. The influence of the left will decline because it’s no longer needed. Anyone can get on a computer and put their message out there, whereas traditionally the left has been a voice for minorities and the misbegotten. They’ll lessen their influence. Apart from the workers voice which I fully support but when the labour vote becomes a fully blown vehicle for socialism you’ve got to draw the line. Which will sadden tits like Griff no end.

    I think the fact that you think they are no longer needed because you disagree with what is being advocated has no bearing on the public at large and in my view is a poor basis for your prognostications.

    Moreover it is a largely meaningless prediction anyway because the “political left” is not fixed in stone. Politics evolves. Rob Muldoon is a far cry from John Key for instance and in this respect the political right and political left are always fluctuating in their support and redefining themselves in an attempt to win the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    The impact of NZ political blogs is zero, a fat big zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    The Herald is claiming the Kawhia cop deserved it…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10859195

    This ‘newspaper’ gets more bizarre by the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    And Keeping Stock I agree wholeheartedly- T20 ‘Hit and Giggle’ is a blight on the great game of cricket and is destroying the game in New Zealand. Our players seem obsessed with getting IPL contracts to the extent we are now seeing ‘head in the air’ ugly slogs in the opening session of Test matches. They clearly don’t care if the lose the match in three days! So long as they get themselves a lucrative ‘Hit and Giggle’ contract. Tossers the lot of them…. Playing a Test match for your country is the ultimate in cricket. Having a ‘T20 ‘specialist’ like McCullum as captain shows where the thinking (or lack of it) is at…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    Pete:
    >What is the impact of political blogs in NZ?

    Kiwiblog had its 9,000th user registration in November.Pretty impressive, but you don’t get 9,000 people commenting every day.
    And as a percentage of the population….
    If it gets 10,000 visitors a day, again, that’s top end figures for any blog, but a small per centage of the population.
    And you can’t add 10,000 for KB, 12,000 for Whale Oil, 5,000 for The Standard, as some of those will be people who’ve read all three.

    >To what extent are the views of the active blogging community representative of, or different from, the average NZ voter?

    Political blogs attract people who are more interested in politics/world affairs than the average voter.

    >Is it fair to say that bloggers tend to have views that are more “extreme” than the norm?

    More opinionated, perhaps. You have to enjoy a debate and not be afraid of being rubbished by people who don’t share your views. Blogs aren’t a place for the thin-skinned or delicate of disposition!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    The owner of a website has every right to stipulate what advertisements are dispayed. Just as the owners of a magazine can publish what ads they want in their mag. It is a matter of copyright. Sure, if after I purchase a magazine (or indeed collect a free community newspaper from my letterbox) I can pay someone a small amount to stick in some new adverts, more to my liking, over the originals. However, does the person I pay have the right to do this before it is delivered to my letterbox. Can they do this even before the paperboy collects them for delivery? I’d say no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hj (7,021 comments) says:

    The impact of NZ political blogs is zero, a fat big zero.
    ………..
    They are a place where ideas can synthesize and spread particularly when they are blocked out of the elite controlled media. Neither the media nor our political parties mirror exactly the value of ideas, just the ones chosen by vested interests or the elites.
    A good example is radio nz’s silence on the findings of the Savings Working Group re house prices and high immigration/ tax breaks for property investors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Bludgers and fraudsters caught red-handed: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10859180

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    The impact of NZ political blogs is zero, a fat big zero.

    Manolo, how could you say that?!!

    Lucky for you that the Great Bogger is currently on covert ops deep behind enemy lines or he would admonish you severely for failing to recognise the success thus far of his 20 year master plan. Why, he has single-handedly turned the commie tide. He said so himself.

    (No gorillas were harmed in making this announcement.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    hj at 10:09 am:

    They are a place where ideas can synthesize and spread…

    I agree that blogs are a good place for ideas to be mooted, discussed, and debated – but at the end of the day, that’s it. How much of what is discussed on this blog, or indeed ANY blog, ever translates into ACTION? Some of the more active blogs with motivated members MAY occasionally manage to get people along to a rally or two, but that’s about it.

    I believe that political activists find Facebook and other social media to be far more useful tools, from what I have heard (but not personally observed).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Shit you dont need bait on your hook around here:lol: :twisted:
    we are just the talk back of the present time

    Its still fun
    Watching squawk plea for total ignorance
    Of the political motivation of the oil coal and gas industry THE CARBON industry kea
    In obscuring the true state of the sciences involved in climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    davinci, your penchant for cynicism and profound dislike of RB remain unchallenged and unchanged.

    I share graham’s opinion: This is a place for discussion and debate, but that’s the end of it.
    The NZ populace will never pay any attention to what is said here o any other political blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. HB (321 comments) says:

    NCEA results are out on NZQA website.
    Good luck trying to see them – website keeps crashing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff, I need your help.

    I have not received my expected payment from the CARBON INDUSTRY and I want to contact them to follow it up.

    Can you please provide me with the contact details of their NZ office ?

    Since Carbon simply means ORGANIC, I asked the organic shop down the road. The guy did not know what I meant, but there again, he seemed stonned out of his tree. (was it you Griff?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Manolo

    I strive for consistency. Unlike some, sadly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Yes kea a fucked up stoner school drop out loser makes more sense than you
    I have an out for being a fuckknuckle whats yours?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff, got that address yet ?

    Or were you making up stories again ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Griff – it must suck being so heavily invested in this man made global warming scam. by now you know its bullshit but youve preached about it to everyone! so you just have to stay the course.

    of course, a real bloke would say “shit, i was wrong”. but not griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff maybe you should stick to what you know best – Recreational pharmacology – and leave the heavy AGW stuff to the rest of us.

    We all get your message : The world is ending because mankind is bad and is ruled by the non-existent evil CARBON INDUSTRY

    (Note that the hundreds of billions of dollars AGW industry is not BIG, because BIG = evil and the AGW industry is good because they said they are .)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,…

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

    I guess the CARBON INDUSTRY got to their families a Griff :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    The Drudge of Denial
    Marc Morano
    Founder, Climate Depot

    Morano, who worked for Sen. James “Global Warming is a Hoax” Inhofe, left Congress last year to set up shop as the Matt Drudge of climate denial. Today he runs Climate Depot, a website whose sponsor is funded by oil heir Richard Mellon Scaife. A private version of a congressional blog that Morano ran for Inhofe, the site serves as a clearinghouse for climate kooks. “He’s a central cell of the climate-denial machine,” says Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace. “He’s been very effective in delaying action on this crisis.”

    Morano says climate scientists are in the “fear-promoting business” and accuses them of waging a “war on modern civilization.” But it’s Morano who trafficks in wild claims, routinely distorting the work of climate scholars and charging that “proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 billion.” A former producer for Rush Limbaugh, Morano gained fame as one of the first to trumpet Swift-boat lies about John Kerry’s military record. Andrew Watson, a British climate professor who recently debated Morano on the BBC, said it best in a whispered aside at the end of the show: “What an asshole.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Marc Morano

    Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. He previously worked for Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) — both vocal climate change deniers.

    Although he has no scientific background, Morano has declared that the science of manmade climate change is “collapsing.” He has called global warming a “con job” and said that climate scientists “deserve to be publicly flogged.” Morano often appears on Fox News to spread misinformation on climate change, and Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly used his material to attack climate scientists.

    Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. CFACT dismisses the scientific consensus on climate change and maintains that “real world evidence” shows that “global warming claims are failing.” To spread its message, CFACT organized the Copenhagen Climate Challenge — a conference of climate contrarians — to coincide with the UN climate conference in 2009.

    UPDATE (12/5/12): CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form reveals that it received over $300,000 from Donor’s Trust, an anonymously funded group that PBS called the “number one supporter of the groups” that deny climate change. It lists Morano as the highest paid member of its staff at a salary of over $150,000 a year

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Not to mention the Petition Project with over 30,000 signatures:
    http://petitionproject.org/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier. He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh’s show in the early ’90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center. In 2004, he was one of the first “reporters” to hype the John Kerry swiftboating story. In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his Bullshitter-in-Chief “Director of Communications.” Morano’s position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who “disagreed” with the consensus. Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website Denial Depot Climate Depot. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] Supposedly, he exposes the “lies” of the “warmists” and “scientific McCarthy-ites” who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find.

    In 2010, Morano was given the “Petr Beckmann award” by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. Apparently, he thinks this is something to be proud of.[2]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Andrew Watson, a British climate professor who recently debated Morano on the BBC, said it best in a whispered aside at the end of the show: “What an asshole.”

    Yes most probably said that because he had been most cruelly publically exposed as an empty headed prat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Tut tut griff, not citing your sources.
    “Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group ”
    Political bias in your sources makes them null and void according to your rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) –”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensuswhatconsensusamongclimatescientiststhedebateisnotover.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Warmist debates skeptic:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    An article in the NZ Herald by Philip Gibbons says that the CO2 emissions from the Black Friday forest fires in 2009 released only 30 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. This is in response to a claim that the forest fires currently burning produce much more CO2 than the emissions from coal fired power stations in Australia.

    However I see from the Ministry of Primary Industry, that when one harvests one’s Pinus Radiata forest at age 25, it is deemend to have released 676 tonnes of CO2 per hectare (in Waikato, where my forest partnerships are). Even NZ indigenous forest aged 25 is deemed to have released 223 tonnes of CO2.

    So who is wrong? Why am I required to pay 676 tonnes of CO2 on harvest of a forest where a large proportion of the wood goes to construction timber when the forest destroyed by fire apparently only releases 30 tonnes of CO2?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Still just because they claim something it makes it true……eh …….nutters

    I with great amusement kea not you repeated use of claims very much like this nutters
    critical thinking for morons
    Try actually googling your so called experts
    find out who they are not just believe rubbish like fuckwits
    I googled “climate depot funding” and what do you know a wingnut funded by the carbon industry

    Why are all the organizations that deny climate change funded by the oil gas and goal industry?
    Why do they get the money via pr and lobby groups.
    Why do you think once exposed that you have a real view of climate change science?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    rouppe, I can not answer your question, but I can tell you where to look. I once asked KB’s resident climate alarmists what the “solution” was to AGW.

    The only answer I got was to tax rich countries and give the money to poor ones in the developing nations. (eg: take money from white people to give to not so white people)

    Funny that the political system of global socialism is the only answer they could find to “climate”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Heh, Monckton on the “Wet Office” (UK Met Office) assertions about David Rose’s articles:

    When David Rose of the Mail on Sunday wrote two pieces last year, several months apart, saying there had been no global warming for 15 years, the Met Office responded to each article with Met Office in the Media blog postings that, between them, made the following assertions:

    1. “… [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”

    2. “What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming …”.

    3. “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña) is about 0.03 C°/decade …”.

    4. “Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.”

    5. “The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming … so … such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”

    Each of the assertions enumerated above was calculated to deceive. Each assertion is a lie. It is a lie told for financial advantage. M’lud, let me take each assertion in turn and briefly outline the evidence.

    1. The assertion that Mr Rose was “entirely misleading” to say there had been no global warming for 15 years is not just entirely misleading: it is entirely false. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).

    2. What is absolutely clear is that the assertion that “it is absolutely clear that we have continued to see a trend of warming” is absolutely, clearly false. The assertion is timescale-dependent. The Met Office justified it by noting that each of the last n decades was warmer than the decade that preceded it. A simple heuristic will demonstrate the dishonesty of this argument. Take a two-decade period. In each of years 1-2, the world warms by 0.05 Cº. In each of years 3-20, the world does not warm at all. Sure, the second decade will be warmer than the first. But global warming will still have stopped for 18 years. By making comparisons on timescales longer than the 18 years without warming, what we are seeing is long-past warming, not a continuing “trend of warming”.

    3. In August 1997 global temperatures were not “in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño”: they were in transition, about halfway between La Niña (cooler than normal) and El Niño (warmer than normal) conditions. Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not “at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña”: they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two.

    4. The Met Office’s assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is dataset-dependent. On most datasets, 1998 was the warmest year on the global instrumental record (which only began 160-odd years ago). Therefore, on these datasets, it cannot have been possible for each of the last ten years to be among the warmest on record.

    5. Finally, the Met Office shoots itself in the foot by implicitly admitting that there has been a 15-year period without warming, saying that such a period is “not unexpected”. Yet that period was not “expected” by any of the dozens of lavishly-funded computer models that have been enriching their operators – including the Met Office, whose new computer cost gazillions and has the carbon footprint of a small town every time it is switched on. The NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/#more-77497

    Here’s a prediction: Griff can’t make any cohesive counter arguments, only logical fallacies like ad-hominems and appeals to authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Don’t ya just love it when the left eats itself.

    A delightful spat between the feminists and the trans crowd saw an article pulled from the observer

    It was turns of phrase like this that saw the article, pulled

    To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don’t know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.

    Shims, shemales, whatever you’re calling yourselves these days – don’t threaten or bully we lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we’ve experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment, and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You really won’t like us when we’re angry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Why are all the organizations that deny climate change funded by the oil gas and goal industry?
    Why do they get the money via pr and lobby groups.
    Why do you think once exposed that you have a real view of climate change science?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    @ rouppe there is no reason for it. You can always replant and apy nothing. Also the cost of buying the credits has dropped hugely (it was as low as $2/t one time I checked) if you want to redevelop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    I still haven’t seen any peer reviewed calculation of the scope of natural carbon emissions from fires, volcanoes, geo thermal activity etc. How can assertions be made about the effect of human CO2 emissions unless you can wrap it up in a measurement of total emissions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Why do the fossil fuel industries fund climate scientists by magnitudes more than any skeptic organisations?
    Why do insurers/re-insurers promote climate alarm?
    Why do big financial institutions want to establish carbon exchanges?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Dean Papa (320) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 10:08 am

    The owner of a website has every right to stipulate what advertisements are dispayed. Just as the owners of a magazine can publish what ads they want in their mag. It is a matter of copyright. Sure, if after I purchase a magazine (or indeed collect a free community newspaper from my letterbox) I can pay someone a small amount to stick in some new adverts, more to my liking, over the originals. However, does the person I pay have the right to do this before it is delivered to my letterbox. Can they do this even before the paperboy collects them for delivery? I’d say no.

    The issue you appear to be avoiding is the fact that the individual recipient has given PERMISSION for this to occur. They are not distributing copyright material to anyone else and altering how it is displayed to anyone else. They are altering how it is displayed for THEMSELVES and they have every right to do this and to contract a third party to assist them with that. To imply, as you do, that the individual does not govern how material is displayed to themselves would lead to the absurd conclusion that if I start listening to a song I have to listen to all of it as the creator intended because they own the song. Or if I load a webpage with an advert on it I actually have to read it.

    If someone delivers some copyrighted material to my letterbox I can contract someone to alter it before I have read it. The fact is the webpage is delivered to the individuals computer as the creator intends. But once the computer has it, the individual is well within their rights to alter it as they see fit such as by agreeing with a third party that they will alter all ads that come to their computer. Your analogy of “before it’s in the letterbox” and “before the delivery boy has collected it” do not apply because the alteration occurs at the individuals computer following agreement from that recipient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Why are all the organizations that deny climate change funded by the oil gas and goal industry?

    Why are all the groups that promote AGW funded by money taken from tax payers ? Do they have any other source of income?

    Why are you willing to accept that scientists will distort the truth, only if they oppose your point of view ?

    What about those scientists that used to support the IPCC special interest group, but now oppose it ?

    Why can you not answer these questions ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Why does griff get his talking points from the blog of “fundie nutter” John Cook?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

    About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

    Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff who funded that research and how much is the AGW worth globally ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    @KiwiGreg

    Yes I could. However the purpose of investment is that eventually one wants to get the money out to spend it in one’s retirement. I do not have sufficient time left on this earth to last even 2 planting rotations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml#.UPSRcx1JMQg

    IPCC website. Note the diagram. The IPCC must approve the “outline” of a paper before it is even written. A total closed shop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

    Griff is clearly not comfortable talking about the money. So I will have a look myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “In 2011, your federal government will spend $10.6 million a day on climate change. Annual expenditures will be about $4 billion on global warming research…”

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/tait-trussell/the-black-hole-of-global-warming-spending/

    This is just ONE country…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “The [climate] alarmists . . . enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money, and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year.
    Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer (i.e., Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund).

    http://www.climatewiki.org/index.php/Spending_on_Climate_Change_Research_%26_Development

    Not looking good is it Griff ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    New Zealand leading the way in dealing with legal highs.

    Britain ‘impressed’ with NZ’s legal high laws

    New Zealand’s regime for approving so-called “legal highs” could become a template for British regulations, with a government committee there recommending key parts of new legislation be adopted.

    A report by Britain’s All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform has recommended Westminster should adopt “the key features of the New Zealand policy” – that the onus of proving legal highs have a “low risk of harm” should be put on the manufacturers.

    The British drug reform committee, chaired by Baroness Meacher, is “impressed” by New Zealand’s approach.

    “They have examined the best available knowledge about the harms of particular psychoactive substances,” the British committee’s report said.

    “They encourage suppliers to focus on product safety, and restriction of supply to protect vulnerable consumers, particularly young people.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8179402/Britain-impressed-with-NZs-legal-high-laws

    Like any product the onus of ensuring reasonable safety should be on the supplier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    who funded that research and how much is the AGW worth globally
    We did because for some strange reason the threat of the emissions of carbon causing warming was considered a massive threat by the governments we have selected to look after our affairs.
    This moneys for research funding is distributed by funding scientists specialist bodies and university’s
    Like Nassa the National Institute of Atmospheric Research Met Service uk, Penn state east anglia u, Alabama state etc

    Your continued use of its captured by money has one great sorry many logic flaws
    The bodies that do the research mostly have other proprieties as well
    As funding is always limited any group or project is competing with all the other research priority
    Do you really think all the rocket scientists prefer all the money that presently go to research on climate change was spent on space or the weather men like all the money spent on climate modeling.
    Then you have the simple fact that it is not just the bodies that are doing the research, most papers are interdisciplinary and included scientists from all around the globe

    Papers for AGW 13950
    Papers against AGW 24
    More than 30,000 scientist involved spanning all of the hard sciences
    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Legal highs are only proliferating because of the government’s failed war on illegal drugs. And last time I checked shops selling legal highs were still in business. Indeed I noticed a new one just this morning. I guess some people are easily impressed.

    You are buying into a false narrative about product safety while ignoring the real tradeoffs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Continues to make the Standard a great look for a laugh – the regulars hate each other, and others have left as having been severely censored by the lovely Louise Prent.

    Red Alert has morfed in to a Red Jerk because Trevor has debunked elsewhere, and Clara Curran does not like anybody either who disagrees with her.

    Can’t wait for something to happen – but I suspect into suspended animation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Those of you who’ve now given up on the CK Stead Bain thread, just missed something very very special:

    Dotcom (1,388) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Dotcom (1,385) Says:

    [DPF: 30 demerits. You are close to a suspension]

    Fuck you too David Fucking Farrar and you biased fucking allocation of demeirits.

    And fuck your polluted blog with its Comments-Commando-Cunts who comment only to tell others where and what others can comment on. Fuck you, cunt-faced, ugly Fat Farrar – Cunt.

    I’ll wear the suspension as a badge of Honour.

    You’re a cunt too David Farrar, A cunt, whose only purpose in life is to get your comments count up, arse fucker. Mother’s arse-fucking Farrar Cunt.

    Dotcom (1,388) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Bye all.

    Dotcom (1,388) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    David the poofter lover, poo-pushing lover, demerits anyone who gives a sound argument against gay marriage.

    Fucking idiot gay-fucker lover.

    Sent anyone off to see “Goatse on Google” lately have we David Farrar.

    How many demerits did the poster of “Goatse” on Kiwiblog get. Oh that’s right, none, because this luster after arse-holes was David Farrar himself.

    You fucking arsehole-lustfull pervert Farrar.

    Come on ban me you arse-licking pervert.

    Fuck this suspension bullshit, ban me for life. David Farrar last seen sucking his own sperm out of his boyfrend’s arsehole.

    Swallower as well, they say. Hepatitis for lunch anyone? A, B or C on the menu if you go near the filth monger Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff, why would oil and coal suppliers bother spending lots of money on climate research?

    The demand for their product (oil & coal) is massive. The “scientists” told us about PEAK OIL years ago. They said we are running out, remember what the scientists said ?. Demand has never been higher. China is putting coal fired plants online at an incredible rate. There is no point in them spending money, every one needs their product and demand is growing. More and more of the major consumers are telling the climate busy bodies to stick-it. Its happy times for the oil & coal industry.

    Just look at yourself Griff… all your pissing and moaning about the BIG OIL and the imaginary CARBON INDUSTRY, yet you use their products constantly. No way will you put your actions into words and all you AGW freaks are the same. You do not do it because you know AGW is bullshit. Prove me wrong by crawling off naked into the bush, to “save the planet”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    So those that make up lies only get a little money

    logic fail

    That they do so much harm with so little money may make you guys feel good

    Tt makes me wonder about distribution on the bell curve :lol:

    On drugs does that mean if we can prove its harmless can we smoke it then?
    what does reasonable safety mean?
    As safe as alcohol ?
    That is the standard for safety by societal measure for recreational drugs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Dotcom, the Bain-obsessed nutter, had an emotional meltdown? How surprising!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “So those that make up lies only get a little money”

    Actually I think Peter Glieck gets quite a lot of money, certainly more than he deserves. Same with Lewandowsky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    RRM – struth! thats an even bigger meltdown than the classic dad4justice rant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Lovely right now more exposure of you lack of morels

    He tricked them after they stole tit for tat

    One theft produced the biases for never ending lies. after eight inquiries there is no fault found yet those in denial still deny this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

    The other exposed the funding for those lies
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/14/heartlandgate-anti-science-ins/

    Directly linking the carbon industry with climate denial.

    Exposing the lie that WUWT and the rest are funded by public donations And guys like bob Carter or any of their other “scientific” experts are any thing but paid pr hacks.

    The only document they could get away with claiming false the most damning of all

    It detailed a deliberate campaign to dissuade science teachers from teaching science

    lie after lie after lie

    A sick bunch of sad puppy’s

    I dont think they will get away with this much longer ten years max and no one will doubt AGW The costs will get to high very quickly

    As it is the last years weather will have an effect on public support more than a ipcc report ever will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. T”

    I doubt this very much Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    All I’m after is quantifiable emissions data. The problem with the climate change debate from my perspective – which is one who can’t be arsed spending months trolling through verbose self-inflated scientific reports couched in terms indecipherable to lay-people – is that the information coming out always conflicts.

    The ETS decrees that my hectare of pine forest will emit 676 tonnes of CO2 when harvested or destroyed by natural event (e.g. fire), whereas the burned forests of Australia allegedly emit only 30. The ETS was set up because of climate change proponents so one would imagiine that the figure of 676 is agreed by pro-climate-change scientists. Yet this guy Philip Gibbons – who is clearly a climate change proponent – is saying 30 tonnes for the wild fire damage.

    So I, an average bloke of reasonable intelligence, cannot take the statements seriously and do not trust the statements made by climate change proponents. All the talk is about how many million tonnes of CO2 goes into the air from man-made sources. I say again, I have never seen quantifiable data that gives a figure for tonnes of CO2 from natural sources.

    I don’t know if man-made CO2 forms 90%, 9% or 0.9% of total emissions. And that is important information on which to base a reasonable opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Poes law
    Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Rouppe the whole thing is a bogus as hell C02 is a very minor componant of the atmosphere about 0.00391% i.e TINY

    According to those with an axe to grind this is an increase from 0.00280% 200 years ago – these figures are very uncertain but are taken as gospel and these numbers are not given as percentages but in PPM or parts per million because they look more impressive.

    Fact is the climate changes, always has, always will and those looking for a scam use the variability of the weather from year to year to scare us into moving money from our bank accounts to theirs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I doubt this very much Kea.

    So do I, and rather a lot else, on both sides. I look at the overall balance of what is presented.

    I am not convinced that man is causing serious climate change. I do not dispute that the climate is changing, it always has. I do not dispute that man as some influence on the current change. I do dispute the degree of change caused by man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    rouppe
    the hard way
    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/papers-on-global-carbon-cycle/
    the easy way
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,606) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Rouppe the whole thing is a bogus as hell C02 is a very minor componant of the atmosphere about 0.00391% i.e TINY

    According to those with an axe to grind this is an increase from 0.00280% 200 years ago – these figures are very uncertain but are taken as gospel and these numbers are not given as percentages but in PPM or parts per million because they look more impressive.

    Whereas you give it in a percentage figure to minimize it. Pot Kettle Black?

    The relevant question is climate sensitivity. Whether you are talking percentages or PPM these figures mean almost nothing without context. The context is provided by asking how much should the climate warm by doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere. Without feedback, that should be 1K. The argument therefore is about what feedback’s exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Why are all the organizations that deny climate change funded by the oil gas and goal industry?

    *sigh*. No they’re not. Why do you persist on smearing and lying Griff?

    Oh, that’s right – you’re a climate alarmist. It’s a requirement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    spliff, are you saying you know how the climategate stuff got out there? Because you seem to be accusing somebody – who is it spliff? The world wants to know. The police investigation hasn’t identified anyone but you seem to know.
    Maybe Trenberth leaked it?

    Unlike in the Glieck case where we know exactly what he did. How do you sleep at night with such hypocrisy spliff?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    If that is so kea why dont you get of your arse and actually read about what the scientist are saying rather than spend your time in a effort to deny scientific method and present stupid propaganda

    Your “I dont believe” is as material as the pathetic shit just quoted by gods man above

    Science says we need to start seriously planing for a very different world in the near future

    Nature is beginning to tell us that as well

    You claim to by environmental aware

    Keep you eyes open as you tramp in the bush

    note the selected environments that plants live in

    If you change the environment slightly the ecology disappear to be replaced by something else

    This rapid change we are facing will displace environments all over the world

    There will be no native bush ecology’s around for you kids to look at in the future

    They will not be able to adapt fast enough. The isolated nature of our remaining bush will stop adaption

    allowing weeds to take over No more bush just gorse and wollynightshade and pampas

    Changes is environment that normally take thousands of years are happening in less than a century

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Climate change deniers, only found in two places – Kiwiblog and the Tea Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The hard way…

    The easy way…

    How about the “honest way” Griff ?

    How do you sleep at night with such hypocrisy spliff?

    He self medicates with cannabis. Vast amounts of it. I do not judge him for it. Imagine how depressing it must be preaching to the unbelieving masses that they & their children have no future here on earth. It is all going to end come judgment day. Global floods, famine, the whole works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “rather than spend your time in a effort to deny scientific method”

    The scientific method:
    Question
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Test
    Analysis
    Replication
    External Review
    Data recording and sharing

    You’re supporting the science deniers griff. When empirical data doesn’t match the prediction, you’re meant to change the hypothesis, not the data. You’re also meant to record and share the data griff, to assist with replication griff. And external review is useless if it’s only done by your pals – witness the Gergis paper for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Oh Griff, your on fire today. Just listen to you go.

    “They will not be able to adapt fast enough. The isolated nature of our remaining bush will stop adaption

    allowing weeds to take over No more bush just gorse and wollynightshade and pampas”

    In science there are no weeds. They are simply plants. You started saying the bush will not adapt, then when on to describe how it will adapt and even naming specific plants.

    Even if your gloomy outlook is true, it does not prove AGW. It may prove GW, but not AGW.

    There is NOT some “correct” climate for the Earth. There is no scientific basis for that. For most of Earths history the climate has been very very different to this moment in time, between the ice ages, we are enjoying now. Get it through your head Griff, Earth is not here for mans benefit. You and your kids are not that special. None of us are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    hamnidav2 – can you name a single climate change denier?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Small and medium-sized New Zealand businesses killing people:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10859227

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Well what do ya know ! the climate alarmist is anti business :)

    What is your solution to climate change, hamnidaV2 ?

    (I am guessing it is destroying the capitalism and the free market …)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    hamnida is a Green/Labour supporter, hence a dedicated socialist and rabid anti-bussines/anti-capitalist .
    The comrade uses AGW as a shield and excuse against the forces of progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    He’s admitted it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    Oh dear, how sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I wonder if all the other drug users (in sports Griff, not you) will come out and admit it…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    DPF

    You can’t just take them down!! They should be donated to medical science. :lol:

    BTW, what was the ticket; looked like about 500 to me :lol:

    They say there is a thin line between madness and genius but sadly for Dottie, historians will not ever record that he approached that border. He will instead be remembered as someone piddling in the shower with his nipples connected to the light sockets. An interesting means of sparking inspiration but in Dottie’s case it seems there was a bit of an unexpected power surge.

    Which is perhaps the lesson to be taken from his. Don’t ever, under any circumstances, take up piddling in the shower. One never knows how it will end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    cha

    Your 2nd link is poked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Simply passing on this definition as tweeted by @SocialMedia_NZ :

    Smanker: noun,
    1. a social media wanker.
    2. someone who claims to possess influence but in reality just complains a lot and does nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. hj (7,021 comments) says:

    The comrade uses AGW as a shield and excuse against the forces of progress.
    ………………………………………………..
    The Human economy is a subset of the worlds eco system not the other way around: it’s Mother Earth not Mother Business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    Here ya go.

    http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/must-read-justice-department-recommends-joining-armstrong-suit_271482

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    Yanuach Beshalom Al Mishkavo Leon Leyson

    The truth is, I did not live my life in the shadow of the Holocaust. I did not give my children a legacy of fear. I gave them a legacy of freedom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The Human economy is a subset of the worlds eco system not the other way around: it’s Mother Earth not Mother Business.

    So why worry about a small sub-subset like mans tiny contribution to co2, good point.

    Now we have done AGW, lets move onto less contentious things. How many Whales & Dolphins should we cull this year, as part of the sustainable harvest ?

    When we begin to exploit the deep sea oil reserves in the Antarctic, how will we allot the oil to the various nations, or should it be a free for all ?

    When will Africans start paying back all that money they have been given by do-gooding Europeans and are they taking-the-piss ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    When will we eat our useless native parrots it could save them from the coming catastrophe
    Mind you the kaka has a name that translates as shit and from recent observation some of our other parrots are full of shit as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Melt down are not nice for those that have them. Poor dotty he rose on the horizon like a shiny thing yet exploded from the blog like a big pile of things that go bang.
    Made the only other melt down I have seen look quit mild.
    DGs was more a quite slide into drunken stupor by comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “When will we eat our useless native parrots” :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Uh oh – who’da ever thunk it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    so why did my link go west?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/8180500/Report-slams-Clarks-UN-programme

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Andrei, that vile bitch has been caught out many times since joining the corrupt and useless UN. Of course you don’t here much of that in the NZ media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea,

    I do not dispute that man as some influence on the current change. I do dispute the degree of change caused by man…

    So why worry about a small sub-subset like mans tiny contribution to co2, good point…

    Could you quantify “tiny contribution”? What is your estimate of climate sensitivity?

    Also, if you believe it to be below 2 deg C, on what do you base this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea,

    There is NOT some “correct” climate for the Earth. There is no scientific basis for that.

    I disagree. There is a “correct” climate in terms of what is hospitable for human life. Many extreme climates in Earth’s history are not suitable and although we may not be able to prevent natural climate change, we should surely exercise caution to ensure we do not make extreme changes occur a whole lot sooner than they have to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Kea

    Fortunately we were able to infiltrate the AGW nutters’ HQ. For your reference a copy of their strategy.

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9nf01i7hdn5h55w/Handle%20a%20Skeptic.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    Griff….Kea Has anyone checked the orbit of the earth recently. It worries me that the earth may slowly be getting closer to the sun and therefore heating up a little

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “Also, if you believe it to be below 2 deg C, on what do you base this?”
    The IPCC projections coupled with 30 years of observations of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. E.g the increase in forcing from rise in GHG’s between 1990 and 2010 was 0.63 w/m^2 which led to an increase in “average” temperature of just under 0.18 deg C over the same period.
    An exponential increase in GHG concentrations would be required to incur a faster level of warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    The much despised comrade Clark found wanting again. What a surprise!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    sorry, “0.18 deg C over the same period” should have read “0.18 deg C per decade over that period”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Actually developing an appetite for endangered species is a great idea. If enough people want them, then farming them would be profitable, and no farmed animal becomes extinct.

    Kiwiburger anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Boglio, “climate scientists” have told us the Sun has no effect on the Earths climate. Tiny amounts of the trace gas co2 are responsible, not the gigantic Nuclear furnace that blasts the planet 24/7 365 days of the year. Griff said that is the “scientific consensus”.

    To be fair, I would say that too if you paid me the sort of money those guys get ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    trend calculator

    1990 to 2010

    Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011)

    Trend: 0.184 ±0.105 °C/decade (2σ)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    Manalo. 5.41pm. It’s about time the world woke up to the fact that Frau Clark does not walk on water and has the same body functions as us mere mortals. Plus she is casual with the truth.

    So much for looking after the poor whilst she clocks up a massive carbon footprint flying all over the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Just in case anyone wants to jump on the AGW gravy train….

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/02xr94k4kxqhadb/Climate%20Crap%201.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Is the alarmist a (weed) smoker?
    Yes, that’s Griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    1990 to 2010

    Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011)

    Trend: 0.184 ±0.105 °C/decade (2σ)

    So what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Just to clear up any confusion…..

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v9anhej5vlirjtz/Climate%20Crap%202.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Andrei, Andrei… you should know better than to ask simple, relevant questions to Griff. It causes a THC-induced brain implosion as there’s nothing in a warmist/alarmist script to deal with the simple truth (ie that there is nothing to panic about, and certainly nothing that should have mankind abandon progress on account of a threat which is a fabrication)

    One of the things I find fascinating is the total absence of braying support at KB for the CAGW hypothesis. Three years ago there would have been 10 griff’s all parroting the same lies, fear and half-truths. Now it’s just him. If this were a war, griff would be the chap found in the forrest, armed and pretending to be dangerous 40 years after hostilities ceased.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,388) Says: January 15th, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    Bye all.

    Hopefully, now he will have time to remember to take his pills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    Bloody Chinese have poisoned the South china sea, mercury levels found in tuna stocks from that area are too high for consumption so they may have to fish in other areas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Has it ever occurred to the AGW people that they’re a bit like the Baniacs, in some ways, I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    RightNow (4,808) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    “Also, if you believe it to be below 2 deg C, on what do you base this?”
    The IPCC projections coupled with 30 years of observations of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. E.g the increase in forcing from rise in GHG’s between 1990 and 2010 was 0.63 w/m^2 which led to an increase in “average” temperature of just under 0.18 deg C over the same period.
    An exponential increase in GHG concentrations would be required to incur a faster level of warming.

    Trends on a 20 year time scale are only going to reflect a transient climate response. If I recall correctly models generally predict a transient response of approx 2 deg C per decade which is reasonably close to the observed warming. Equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates on the other hand are obtained from integrating ocean temperatures over a long period of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Yes nutters
    They all realize its futile to argue with nutters
    Its after all it is a mental condition

    If you’re in denial, you’re not being realistic about something that’s happening
    In some cases, a little denial can be a good thing. Being in denial for a short period can be a healthy coping mechanism, giving you time to adjust to a painful or stressful issue.

    Refusing to acknowledge that something’s wrong is a way of coping with emotional conflict, stress, painful thoughts, threatening information and anxiety.

    When you’re in denial, you:

    Refuse to acknowledge a stressful problem or situation
    Avoid facing the facts of the situation
    Minimize the consequences of the situation

    In its strictest sense, denial is an unconscious process. You don’t generally decide to be in denial about something. But some research suggests that denial might have a conscious component — on some level, you might choose to be in denial.

    Nutters conspiwhacky believing RWNJ luddites

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    And a study has found that China’s coral reefs hace shrunk by 80% over the last 30 years

    Biological surveys in the South China Sea and off mainland China revealed that losses of living coral reefs, especially in the past 10 to 15 years, present a “grim picture of decline, degradation and destruction,” said the research report, according to AFP.

    Pollution, overfishing and coastal development are blamed for the disappearance of the coral reefs. “China’s ongoing economic expansion has exacerbated many wicked environmental problems,” the report authors said.

    http://www.livescience.com/25870-china-coral-reefs.html

    The world is facing more than climate issues. And more than energy supply issues. As the population grows we need more and more resources, but instead we destroy more and more.

    Whatever the science ends up proving we have to be able to live within our means or we will end up destroying our planet. We may survive it, but unless we change our way of living sooner or later current or future generations will suffer, possibly drastically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    As the population grows we need more and more resources

    Human innovation is our greatest resource.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Scientific endeavor is our greatest resource.
    That which developed AGW theory
    Luddite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Pete George, OK lets err on the side of stupidity caution and accept AGW.

    What is the SOLUTION ?

    I did my part by not having kids, largely for environmental reasons. I have the carbon footprint of mouse. I throw out very little waste and walk to work.

    All of the AGW alarmists, with kids, are hypocrites. It is the single worse thing you could do to the planet and no amount of recycling, Prius driving or other banal white middle class attempts to salve your conscience will make up for it. That is the simple fact of the matter you bunch of posers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    Re the ‘discussion’ between Griff and others.

    I regret to advise that, having trawlled through all of Griff’s dialogues with others, I have now reached the stage where I ignore his posts, in the same way that i also ignore the Bright-one’s diatribes (where is she BTW – missing in Ponsonby?) and those of the late (expelled?) Mr.Ure.

    Sorry Griff – it WAS nice to read your comments at the beginning, but now, it’s a case of ‘chronic indigestion’…

    Unfortunately, it is probable that others feel the same.

    Thought you’d like to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    I have five kids. How naughty am I?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Monique

    …”How naughty am I?”…..

    Please….this is a family blog! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Monique Watson, go grab the missus and make another one :)

    I don’t mind the kids, I even like the little shits, but what I object to is insincerity and hypocrisy. Especially the type you constantly get from the privileged white middle class socialists while they dictate to every one on how to live their lives. If they want to claim the moral high ground, then they better earn if by their actions, not their pompous words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    A priest is sitting inside the church, when a bloke comes in and asks to be confessed.

    “Very well, my child,” says the priest, as he leads the man into the confession booth, “Tell me about your sins.”

    “Well, Father,” says the bloke, “On Monday, I was at my girlfriend’s house, and, well… the two of us alone, the house empty… I sinned, Father.”

    “Don’t worry, child,” says the priest, “It’s perfectly normal to have such desires and share them with your partner. Nothing serious, so just say two prayers and you will be cleansed of your sins.”

    “But Father,” continues the man, “It doesn’t end there. On Tuesday, I was at my girlfriend’s house again, but she had gone out with her mates, and the only one there was her sister, and, well… the two of us alone, the house empty… I sinned again, Father.”

    “Oh, child,” says the Father, “You must be strong and fight those urges! Eight prayers shall cleanse you of your sins.”

    “But Father,” says the bloke again, “On Wednesday, I was at my girlfriend’s house again, and she wasn’t there then either, and the only one at home was her mum, and, well… the two of us alone, the house empty… Again I sinned, Father.”

    “Good Lord,” says the priest, “Child, you must think about what you do, so pray-”

    “But Father,” says the bloke, “On Thursday, I was at my girlfriend’s house again, and the whole family had gone to the shop, and the only one there was the maid, and, well… the two of us alone, the house empty… I sinned yet again, Father.”

    The priest falls silent.

    “And then,” continues the bloke, “On Friday, I was at her house again, and they had gone out for the weekend and the only one there was her aunt, and , well… the two of us alone, the house empty…”

    The priest still did not answer.

    “And on Saturday,” said the bloke, “I went to her house again, and there was nobody there except for her grandmother, and, well…”

    The man awaits a reply, but upon hearing none, he exits the booth – only to find the priest up on the belfry.

    “Father,” he calls, “What are you doing up there? I haven’t finished!”

    “Like fuck I’m coming down,” says the priest, “The two of us alone, the church empty… and I don’t want you to sin any more.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    Shit. And here’s me thinking Clark had fucked up big time at the UN and people would be lining up to stand on her throat. Global warming that is crap appears to be more important. Back to my single malt. I do miss Dot Com and his mad raving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    RF, Clark has been caught out many times, as has the UN. But Kiwis are so in love with authority it is rarely reported. I have followed her antics by sourcing real news off shore. It is unusual to see it on Stuff.

    Kiwis have no passion and no spirit. Years of feminism and socialism have broken them. The men are gutless and the women are miserable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Adult Riddle #1

    Q. Do you know how New Zealanders practice safe sex?
    A. They spray paint X’s on the back of the sheep that kick!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    When asked, “What’s your favorite mythical creature?”…….

    …..the answer has to be, “Those happy women in tampax adverts.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    A yet a bunch of libertarian ‘thinkers’ judge us the freest society on Earth. Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Adult Riddle #2

    Q: Why do men find it difficult to make eye contact?
    A: Breasts don’t have eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    South Auckland….. the only place you can buy
    ‘Happy 30th Birthday Nana’ balloons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/cricket-news/axe-won-t-fall-mccullum-and-hesson-5319137

    Just wondering what drugs New Zealands Director of Cricket John Buchanan is on.

    Ross Taylor, Jesse Ryder, Tim Southee and Daniel Vettori were all conspicuous absentees from the South African tour for various reasons and Buchannan says there remains no timeline for any of their returns.

    “We haven’t quite crossed that line yet,” he said.

    “Ross has to go out and play some domestic cricket

    Obviously the only top 10 rated batman New Zealand has, the only one with a test average over 40 has to go out and play fucking Wellington to prove he can play test cricket. Buchanan you’re a nob, just like Hesson FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    PEB
    Fortunately for the ‘Black Caps’, they have an unscheduled day off today for some extra practice ahead of the ODIs. How’s that for a silver lining?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    That can’t be true, I’m just about to sit down and watch an hour or two of the 5th day of the cricket test between New Zealand and South Africa

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    The ‘Black Caps’ should be flattered that their hosts allowed five days for the test matches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    My girlfriend has just asked me how many women I’ve
    sleeped with.

    I said, ‘I really dont want to answer that love, you know I’ve had a past
    & I don’t want to upset you!’

    ‘C’mon’ she said, ‘I can handle it!’

    So I had to sit there and count them all.

    > 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, you, 10, 11, 12.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Polly, I must use that one next time I am asked :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    I don’t care if my wife spits or swallows.

    As far as I’m concerned, she earned that cum and she can do whatever she wants with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Azeraph (604 comments) says:

    You know our planet can take 50 billion but that doesn’t mean those 50 billion will be living comfortable lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    nasska, your all class.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    A new analysis is challenging a report that suggests regular marijuana smoking during the teen years can lead to a long-term drop in IQ. The analysis says the statistical analysis behind that conclusion is flawed.
    http://www.newsday.com/news/link-between-pot-smoking-and-iq-drop-challenged-1.4446210

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    The authors of the original study on marijuana and IQ don’t buy the new claims, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Nether do I
    Empirical evidence suggests some long term effect on future cognate skill the ability to project into the future if pot is heavily smoked before 20 as well as a slight lowering in iq
    Effects on memory and cognitive skill devolved after 20 are reversed if smoking is stopped

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Whatever the science ends up proving we have to be able to live within our means or we will end up destroying our planet. We may survive it, but unless we change our way of living sooner or later current or future generations will suffer, possibly drastically.

    So pessimistic. I’m a believer in the law of accelerating returns. Looking at the wide range of emerging technologies from artificial food to nanotechnology to biomedical engineering to the exponential rise in raw processing power It would seem more likely that they will live lives immeasurably more advanced than ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Empirical evidence suggests some long term effect on future cognate skill

    No shit !

    Empirical evidence suggests no serious AGW either, but your cognitive skills are too frail due to reasons already traversed ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Weihana, stop being a smart arse. Gaia is crying. Man must be punished. Go smoke some herb and tune out into the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Azeraph (112) Says:
    January 15th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
    You know our planet can take 50 billion but that doesn’t mean those 50 billion will be living comfortable lives.

    Unless they are primarily living in an infinite virtual space indistinguishable from reality. Xbox 1 million :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    yes kea I smoke pot whats your excuse for being such a fuckwit mom drop you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Kea is an aussie by birth and upbringing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Figures kola fucker
    Still there is other bits missing as well
    Are his parents yanks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Now now Griff do try and be civil :)

    I don’t care what you smoke. You already know I am wildly liberal on drugs and sodomites. You can sit there with a needle hanging out your arm having burn on a P pipe for all I care. None of that effects me, or the worlds climate.

    I will say that long term use, from a young age, does give people a certain “atmosphere”. That is not from studies, but from observation. I get to see waaaaaayyyyyyyy more drug users than most folk do. I find stonners handle stress badly, but will go away, calm down, and be ok. (yeah I know what they probably did to calm down). Mostly they don’t want a fuss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Oh look, Grieff & Jizz are a couple. How cute. Make sure you boys use condoms and fresh needles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Still there is other bits missing as well

    In a manner of speaking, yes. Kea is actually female. Her name is Marni Sheppeard. Her former blog is here. She’s a troll basically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Actually It may be female and is a troll but your link is way to intelligent to be squawk

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    weihana “Equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates on the other hand are obtained from integrating ocean temperatures over a long period of time.”

    Since the increase in OHC is decelerating it would seem intuitive to expect the resultant ECS to be lower than TCR

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Of course the alarmist may be able to explain how a contrary result is inevitable due to feedbacks so far missing in action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. axeman (252 comments) says:

    Another MSM paper, the Daily Express, joins in with the Daily Mail, GWPF, Telegraph, The National Post (Canada) and The Australian during this last week.

    IT’S A SCAM! But we already knew that….. :-)

    “In the name of the fight against climate change we have seen soaring energy bills, taxes and petrol prices, while large swathes of our landscape have been covered by ugly, useless wind turbines.

    But now the justification for all this green oppression is looking ever weaker. The foundations of the environmental cause are crumbling. For years we have been told by the zealots that, without urgent political action, the Earth will be in real danger from rising temperatures and extreme weather conditions. Yet it is increasingly clear that the evidence to support such alarmist claims is hopelessly flawed.”

    http://beta.dailyexpress.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/370670/Global-warming-is-nothing-more-than-an-expensive-con

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. axeman (252 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the media are in overdrive, making out that “the extreme heat is the new normal” in Australia. The Great Australian Heatwave of January 2013 didn’t push the mercury above 50C at any weather station in Australia, yet it’s been 50C (122F) and hotter in many inland towns across Australia over the past century. See how many are in the late 1800′s and early to mid 1900′s. You can’t blame those high records on man made global warming.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/australia-was-hot-and-is-hot-so-what-this-is-not-an-unusual-heat-wave/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Left Right and Centre (2,979 comments) says:

    I definitely don’t read all of the Griff/ Kea posts. Number one it would take all day. And whoever is right…. then what?

    And I share a similar view to another post…. the Griff posts are almost in the same league as the Bright posts for their sheer ‘next please’ value. I don’t mind the Kea replies but again… time factor. It’s the same thing over and over again… I just skim for the good juicy bits.

    Griff… I’ve had a look at books by people who believe in humanity changing their ways to reduce their impact on the environment due to carbon etc.. but they just didn’t come across as dickheads like you do mate. That’s the difference.

    http://www.amazon.com/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-Everything/dp/1553658310

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    I’m a believer in the law of accelerating returns. Looking at the wide range of emerging technologies from artificial food to nanotechnology to biomedical engineering to the exponential rise in raw processing power It would seem more likely that they will live lives immeasurably more advanced than ours.

    Not so much pessimistic but wary of an inevitable crunch. The only thing we don’t know is how soon it will be, 10 years, 100, 1000, but one day earth’s gravy train will derail.

    With accelerating population and use of finite resources the chances are it will be sooner rather than later.

    There will be a number of things this century that we run out of and can’t find a replacement for.

    The “law of accelerating returns” is an earth sized ponzi delusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Yoza (1,873 comments) says:

    “IT’S A SCAM! But we already knew that…..”

    Yeah, a SCAM, like the Earth isn’t flat SCAM, the Earth orbits the sun SCAM or that crazy evolution SCAM.

    “For years we have been told by the zealots that, without urgent political action, the Earth will be in real danger from rising temperatures and extreme weather conditions.”

    Zealots like Pricewaterhouse Coopers: “The new reality is a much more challenging future in terms of planning, financing and predictability. Even doubling our current annual rates of decarbonisation globally every year to 2050, would still lead to 6oC, making governments’ ambitions to limit warming to 2oC appear highly unrealistic.”
    Jonathan Grant, director, sustainability and climate change, PwC.

    Leo Johnson, partner, PwC said: “While we’ve reversed the increase in emissions intensity reported last year, we’re still seeing results that are simply too little too late. We’ve now got to achieve, for the next 39 years running, a target we’ve never achieved before.”

    “This isn’t about shock tactics, it’s simple maths. We’re heading into uncharted territory for the scale of transformation and technical innovations required. Whatever the scenario, or the response, business as usual is not an option.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    I actual dont give a fuck for your views Left Right and Center or for any of the other uninformed idiots that are ignoring the warnings from science and nature. Those who base their reality on made up story’s from the denial echo chamber are morons
    I much prefer to rely on known science than spin
    Kea is a total dick And proves this daily This is not only my view. It is the growing consensus of the more intelligent posters on KB
    As to catastrophic I fail to see how a warming world will be anything bit If we ignore what we know is coming the impact will be far greater

    Watch the world warm, the records will continue to fall, The cost of the impacts for wild weather will continue to rise.

    And you who chose to hide from reality will pay the cost whether you like it or not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Yoza you have dropped a decimal point
    2 degrees is the low end of current predictions Bye bye American and Australian corn production
    6 degrees is at the top of most ranges Bye bye all agriculture in the tropics and dairy farming in New Zealand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Yoza (1,873 comments) says:

    “Yoza you have dropped a decimal point”

    No, that was just a copy and paste from the PwC report. 6oC is their way of writing 6 degrees, next time I might put ‘6 degrees’ in brackets to avoid confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Ok yoza

    It looks like the formatting for the degrees sign has defaulted to a zero.
    Wild claims and doctored numbers are best left to those who are in denial

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. mdsheppeard (1 comment) says:

    Just to note: the idiot called kea here, who has caused a link fest to one of my popular old blogs where I posted under the name kea, is NOT ME. Repeat: this kea is NOT M. D. Sheppeard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote